Summary

The UIA auditor in May 2004 confirmed the value of refreshing the UIA Balance
Sheet to take account of what is termed 'goodwill' in
standard accounting English. This term may imply a value that cannot be monetarized.
In French accounting practice 'goodwill' is recognized
as fonds de commerce which has a more focused monetary
implication, unless commerce is interpreted in a more
generic sense.

One accounting definition of goodwill is:

Goodwill is the difference between the consideration
payable for a business and the aggregate fair value of its identifiable assets
less liabilities. Much time could be spent in worrying about this definition,
but the essential point is that the goodwill is the
residue of the surplus value of the business after identifying specific assets
to which a fair value can be attributed. It is suggested that intangible assets
can only be capitalised separately from goodwill when
there is an initial measurable value to them that can be recognised.

In the UIA context, 'goodwill' might
be more loosely understood as an established disposition to respond favourably
to UIA concerns, initiatives, products and services. In many cases it may indeed
to difficult to place a monetary value upon it. It is essential non-comptabilisé.

The question then arises as to what might more specifically be understood
as 'goodwill' in the case of the UIA.
In considering this matter, it becomes apparent that this concept of 'goodwill' offers
a powerful diagnostic tool for the current challenges and opportunities of
the UIA - whether or not the focus is on the actual accounting concept
of 'goodwill'. It is notably a conceptual
device (une grille de lecture) for identifying the malaise
from which the UIA has long been suffering.

In summary, the (separate) analysis demonstrates that the current UIA malaise --
that has so long inhibited emergence of collective purpose, a sense of identity,
or more fruitful strategic responses -- derives from misunderstandings, assumptions
and exploitation relating to unrecognised dependency on goodwill in
every aspect of the UIA undertaking.

Comment

In this light, under-resourced Secretariat operations can usefully be understood
to be highly dependent on goodwill for their successful completion. Goodwill is
not then simply a static accounting asset, but is rather a form of 'liquidity' through
which the ongoing activities of the organization are dynamically sustained.
In the case of the UIA it is essential for the ability of the organization
to function.

It is useful to recall that goodwill, even as represented in a Balance
Sheet, may not be constant. Under the best of circumstances it may only be
latent - manifesting only episodically to the full. Goodwill may
only be of a minimal - even token - nature, namely a form of goodwill-lite'.
Periods of crisis are a particular test of goodwill for an organization.

In the case of the UIA, there is now a progressive withdrawal or erosion of goodwill - a
kind of degenerative 'cancer of the will' - through which goodwill is
variously transformed into indifference and disengagement, spontaneously manifesting
and withdrawing in unpredictable ways. For some, the process may have a long
history. It may take the form of an attitude of resignation. In others this
is accompanied by dysfunctional resentment.

Where there are indeed manifestations of goodwill, these tend increasingly
to be in conflict with one another with respect to new development, even when
the issues have been discussed endlessly. Many feel that their goodwill has
been poorly recognized, if not abused. There is also a tendency to exploit goodwill whether
out of necessity, in pursuit of non-consensual ends, or in the classic form
of bureaucratic blackmail - bartering tokens of goodwill in
exchange for services, essential to the functioning of the organization, that
cannot be elicited otherwise.

The presumption of goodwill (and 'benevolence') no longer
applies -- whatever the courtesies and the respect for any immediate obligations,
and however much genuine goodwill continues to manifest.

This occurs at a time when the international community has been exposed to
the realities of both apathy and disaffection on the part of the electorate
as well as widely publicized abuses of democratic processes - at a time
when new forms of will are required for international action.

Conclusions

The crisis of goodwill within the UIA occurs within the context
of failure of goodwill in wider society -- as is evident in the
response to the long-term tragic challenges of underdevelopment. At the time
of writing, aspects of the challenge are evident in the widely regretted
inability to effectively coordinate aid -- expressions of goodwill --
in response to those affected by the South-East Asia tsunami disaster.

More specifically, the crisis of goodwill is also characteristic
of civil society bodies in endeavouring to give form to more fruitful approaches
to the challenges of the times. As one commentator put it, such gatherings
are like airports, many are there out of goodwill, but they are
all passing through to different destinations.

With regard to the UIA, it is currently adequately equipped to fulfil its
contracts in a minimal documentary role -- if it can survive the immediate
cash flow crisis and fulfil its obligations to those not essential to that
process. It currently has the in-house skills, complemented by trained outsourced
assistance, to continue to fulfil those contractual obligations

The UIA urgently needs a new approach to forms of public relations that
can engender income - preferably such as to avoid the conventional
traps of commercial and philanthropic marketing. This could be achieved with
a modest degree of recapitalization. In its absence, proposals are under
consideration to outsource aspects of this marketing in order to generate
such income.

In seeking new leadership to further its role, the greatest care should
be taken to avoid entrapment in patterns and mindsets of the past that leading
to 'business as usual'. The challenge is to determine and agree
on what they are and what the alternatives might be.

A more directive approach, necessarily backed by an appropriate level of
resources (preferably obtained on the initiative of Full Members responsible
for the organization) would reduce dependency on Secretariat skills of self-organization
and unmoderated manifestations of goodwill.

Unfortunately, envisaged remedial processes may be already too late to
retain the genuine support of many affected and alienated by the malaise.
This could severely increase the vulnerability of the organization in the
case of specific skill-sets and forms of support - and the ability
to fulfil certain contractual obligations.

More generally, the use of 'goodwill' as a diagnostic
device may prove to be of value in exploring ways to engender any more fruitful
new world order initiatives dependent - beyond financial resources
-- on the capacity for self-organization sustained by goodwill.

-- Analysis --

Aims

It might be said that the inspiration of the UIA derives in large part from
a form of 'goodwill' - towards
international organizations and especially in support of their pursuit of a
more appropriate world order. International nonprofit associations can themselves
be understood as exercises in 'goodwill' - as
suggested by any use of the term 'benevolent'.

Henri La Fontaine (co-founder of the UIA with Paul Otlet) was an active pacifist
and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1913. He played a key role in the development
of an international masonic order - for
which 'goodwill' is widely recognized
as a core value. Presumably he was inspired by similar values in the active
role he subsequently played in the establishment of the League of Nations and
of the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, precursor of UNESCO. Otlet
himself has been described as having links with freemasonry and must thus have
shared that inspiration. Such links may well have been significant in the subsequent
development of the UIA and its projects, as an anchoring expression of that goodwill.
The UIA has also benefited considerably from goodwill understood
in Catholic terms, whether through the dedication of its leadership over extended
periods to caritative action, or through facilitation of donations. A case
could be made that these two influences combine the approaches of the 'head' and
the 'heart' that are variously significant to nonprofit associations.

It might then be argued that the aims of the UIA, at least as originally understood, reflect
an effort to promote for associations of 'goodwill and
integrity' what freemasonry has endeavoured to promote for individuals
of 'goodwill and integrity'.

[Coincidentally the UIA first sought the assistance of the author of this
analysis from an organization named World Goodwill - resulting incidentally
in an early profile of the UIA in their periodical World Union-Goodwill.
The French title of that body (Bonne Volonté Mondiale) effectively
stresses the non-monetary interpretation of 'goodwill'.]

Challenge: In framing international associations (and by extension
intergovernmental organizations) as bodies presumed to be of goodwill vital
to any better world order, it is easily forgotten that many of these bodies
are specifically opposed to the actions and values of other international
associations. Each may claim a degree of benevolens,
but each may well perceive malevolens' in others - or
engage in a competitive assessment of degrees of goodwill.
As a clearinghouse, the UIA has held to its documentary tradition and avoided
implicating itself in the relative benevolens of one
compared to another. It has dissociated itself from particular causes and coalitions,
widely held to be 'benevolent', however uncritically. It has given
due consideration to perspectives that many perceive as 'malevolent',
or at least misguided. In so doing it holds to a more universal sense of goodwill that
is much challenged to encompass the full range of undertakings of humanity.
It effectively accepts that any particular concept of a 'new world order' may
be legitimately challenged by those who perceive it to be code for a particular
ideological agenda.

The question is how the community of associations as a whole should then be
facilitated in a spirit of goodwill. How indeed
should associations themselves be associated (or networked) in furtherance
of 'goodwill and
integrity'? Given the masonic fondness for architectural symbolism, what
might be the 'social architecture' or 'knowledge architecture' appropriate
to a new and more universal order embodying a higher order of goodwill --
transcending particular manifestations that may act in opposition to one another
within that structure? How is the goodwill by which
the UIA is inspired to mesh with that of other organizations in fulfilling
its statutory functions?

Consequences: As in the case of 'goodwill' in
the Balance Sheet, in its formal deliberations the UIA has ignored the underlying
spirit of goodwill by which its operations have been
sustained (whether amongst Members, within the Secretariat, or with other partners).
It has also ignored the search for more appropriate modes of expression of goodwill in
society. Its restrictive focus on the letter of its Statutes fails to recognize
that these can only serve to channel and focus that goodwill,
which may well undermine the viability of the organization, if unduly constrained.

Members

Full Members: To a large extent, individuals accept the invitation
to become Full Members as an act, or expression, of goodwill in
sympathy with the aims and activities of the UIA. It is even stressed that
little of a tangible nature is expected of them.

Challenge: Members may be as challenged by why they have been coopted
as the Council is by what the business of the UIA is supposed to be. The
Statutes do however impose an obligation to respond to convocations to the
General Assemblies, whether or not Members attend or provide a proxy. If
they respond, it is an act of goodwill. But a strain
starts to be imposed on the goodwill of Full Members
when there is some implication that they should attend,
and should express decisive opinions relating to the future
of the UIA through correspondence or through voting -- and are failing to
fulfil obligations if they do not do so in some way. More strain is imposed
if there is any implication that they should undertake initiatives
in support of the UIA, even in times of crisis. Furthermore, it is effectively
presumed that Members are of goodwill -- without
any real means of subsequently determining the contrary or acting in consequence.It
is under these conditions that the UIA Council is elected through the General
Assembly as the supreme decision-making authority.

Consequences: In this context, new Members seeking to give
form to their goodwill may quickly become frustrated
and alienated when no obvious mechanism or dialogue exists through which
this may be facilitated within the UIA. Furthermore, Members may be alienated
into indifference by their discovery that what they know is required and
appropriate is challenged by what others know is required - without
seeking means to integrate such countervailing perspectives. There may be
no recovery from this initial alienation affecting an unknown percentage
of membership. What is known is that very few Members (who are not Council
members) have responded to the recent crisis situation, or even acknowledged
it. The assumption of their continuing goodwill is therefore questionable.

Council Members: Again, to a large extent, Full Members accept
election to the Council as a gesture of goodwill.
They attend Council meetings as a gesture of goodwill - freely
providing their time -- and are free not to attend or to provide a proxy. Whilst
their travel and accommodation expenses in attending meetings have long been
covered, in the current crisis period members cover their own travel costs - as
an act of goodwill.

Challenge: Again a strain starts to be imposed on the goodwill of
Council members when there is some implication that they should attend,
and should express decisive opinions relating to the future
of the UIA in correspondence or through voting -- and are failing to fulfil
obligations if they do not do so in some way. Again, more strain is imposed
if there is any implication that they should undertake initiatives
in support of the UIA, notably through Council working groups -- even in
times of crisis. It is presumed that Members are not faced with any conflicts
of interest in the execution of their function. It is under these conditions
that the Council elects the Bureau -- and engages in other forms of strategic
decision-making regarding the activities of the Secretariat and in assessment
of its performance.

Consequences: In associating themselves with what they assume to
be a meaningful exercise of goodwill and integrity,
Members are effectively discouraged from engaging to bring it about or to sustain
it -- and may then become particularly cautious in their expression of commitment.
There is an erosion of sense of responsibility. Interactions between Members,
undertaken in a spirit of goodwill, may be
mutually discouraging. Members have had difficulty in finding and articulating
common cause and formulating coherent proposals - or addressing this
challenge. Although they have the statutory right and authority to engage
collectively in determining the future of the UIA, they have no obligation
or responsibility to inform themselves to any degree regarding its working
parameters before expressing preferences for particular options. Out of what
kind of goodwill should
Council members then feel any duty of care? To the extent that they are aware
of the level of goodwill on which current Secretariat
operations are dependent, Members may feel that it gives rise to initiatives
that are effectively out of control. This may give rise to Council initiatives
that are effectively an abuse of the goodwill that
is sustaining a semblance of normality.

Bureau Members: Again, to a large extent, Council members
accept election to the unremunerated offices of President, Vice-President,
Treasurer and Secretary-General as a gesture of goodwill.
To the extent that they undertake their statutory roles, they do so as a gesture
of goodwill - freely providing their time --
and are free not to attend Bureau meetings or to engage in any related correspondence.

Challenge: Again further strain starts to be imposed on the goodwill of
Bureau members when there is some implication that they should be
active in expressing decisive opinions relating to the future of the UIA
-- and are failing to fulfil obligations if they do not do so in some way.
Again, commensurate with their role, even more strain is imposed if there
is any implication that they should undertake initiatives
in support of the UIA, especially in times of crisis. It is under these conditions
that the Bureau, if it meets, engages in strategic decision-making regarding
the activities of the Secretariat and in assessment of its performance.

Consequences: Given its formal statutory functions and preoccupations,
under the circumstances, the Bureau is much handicapped in its capacity to
respond to the crisis of goodwill draining the
collective will to act.

Secretariat activities and outsourcing

Secretary-General: In the case of the last three Secretaries-General,
the role has been undertaken voluntarily - the only remuneration being
in the form of token expenses (which legally results in the SG being declared
as an 'employee'). As such the role is essentially an act of goodwill.
The position, although one of prime formal responsibility, has often been presented
to those solicited for election to the office as requiring only a minimum of
activity in fulfilment of statutory requirements -- since the Secretariat operations
are understood as basically 'running themselves'. Secretaries-General
have tended to treat their involvement as a part-time activity.

Challenge: Strain starts to be imposed on the goodwill of
the Secretary-General when it becomes apparent that there are difficult management
decisions and compromises to be made - for which the SG should take
full responsibility, without necessarily fully comprehending the issues and
their implications, or desiring to do so. The goodwill is
further strained when initiatives proposed by the SG, in the absence of a
full sense of other priorities and commitments, may then have to be set aside
or given lower priority - because they have unforeseen implications
for other operations and resources (straining the goodwill on
which they may themselves be dependent). Again, commensurate with the role,
even more strain is imposed if there is any implication that the SG should resolve
the problems facing the UIA, notably under conditions of crisis. It is under
these conditions that the SG is primarily responsible for managing the Secretariat
and assessing individual performance -- in consultation with the President,
also acting out of goodwill, who is similarly challenged,
but at one step removed (and consequently with a lesser sense of implication
or responsibility in times of crisis).

Consequences: The challenge for the function of Secretary-General,
given the current situation, is that although contractual obligations are being
fulfilled according to schedule and with goodwill,
this is not the case with nurturing proposals for the increased income in the
future. The possibilities are there, but the collective goodwill to
commit to them and carry them out has reached a state of exhaustion.

Secretariat / Employees: Many key tasks involve a relatively
lengthy learning/familiarization period (years rather than months) for fully
effective work. The emphasis has therefore been on indefinite rather than short-term
contracts. To compensate for the much-constrained UIA salaries and working
conditions - and the widespread understaffing -- compromises have long
been made in favour of sustaining a pattern of goodwill with,
and between, employees. Given the nature of much of the work, focused on tightly
scheduled production, much reliance is placed on decentralized self-management
of editorial teams and personal initiative in response to needs and opportunities.
Hierarchical supervision is essentially replaced by mutual checking within
teams. This working climate, well-recognized as attractive to UIA employees,
has been matched by a willingness to respond to challenges of deadlines and
crises by working long hours when necessary - an act of goodwill.
Registration of hours worked has always been done on an honours system with
minimal supervisory verification as opposed to verification by team members.
This is especially the case with the few personnel working from home. Some
personnel work extra hours voluntarily (with no expectation of remuneration
or time-off) and some have worked for extensive period with minimal remuneration - effectively
as volunteers, and acts of goodwill. This self-organizing
culture is noteworthy for its ability to respond spontaneously out of goodwill to
lengthy absences of staff due to severe illnesses.

Challenge: This approach has given rise, in the case of some employees,
to an accumulation of a significant number of overtime hours -- scheduled for
recovery in time-off rather than as salaries. The constraints of Belgian social
security legislation have meant that, once through the trial period, it effectively
becomes very costly to terminate employees. The situation makes it relatively
difficult to change working habits, especially when the person has been encouraged
in any willingness to work voluntarily. In this situation, when personnel may
have relatively good reason to consider that they are not remunerated according
to Belgian norms, continuing goodwill is a vital
factor in sustaining operational coherence.

Consequences: The Secretariat has become dependent, for the completion
of certain tasks, on work done voluntarily, whether or not in exchange for
hours off. This has meant that some projects are not fully costed in the financial
accounts, notably when time-off may subsequently called for. Of crucial importance
have been tendencies for personnel (whether all of the time or only some of
the time) to withdraw their involvement in anything more than their immediate
responsibilities. This then runs the risk of leaving intersectoral problems
undetected, unreported and unattended. The statutory bodies and officers, focused
as they are on formal reporting, have had little awareness of the significance
of these dependencies.

Independents / Consultants: Because of the challenge (and
budgetary implications) of acquiring and employing any necessary high levels
of expertise within the constraints of the Belgian social security legislation,
the Secretariat has been obliged to call upon 'independents' - typical
of the use of 'consultants' by many international bodies responding
to opportunities associated with the European Union in Brussels.

Challenge: Such arrangements appear to be more costly to an organization
than are regular employees, notably in the case of technical consultants for
computer systems. When known, any perceived discrepancies of gross remuneration
undermine goodwill on the part of regular employees
-- however well such differences are justified by the responsibility that the
independent takes for social security costs otherwise borne by the employer.
In the case of long-term use of independents, such resentment, however it is
articulated or felt, undermines goodwill on the
part of the consultant - especially when the consultant offers services to
the UIA at lower than 'commercial rates' -- out of goodwill - or
possibly free of charge as in the preparation of responses to calls for funding
proposals. The situation is further complicated when the Secretariat delays
payment of invoices from consultants - especially when the same consultants,
as an act of goodwill, may at times withhold invoices
for a time to facilitate the UIA cash flow.

Consequences: There has been a tendency to cultivate and sustain
an atmosphere of suspicion -- even a degree of hostility regarding the use
by the Secretariat of independents. No proactive exploration of alternatives
has been proposed - creative responses to the situation are left to
the independent. This is not conducive to sustaining a long-term relationship
with people who have demonstrated valuable concrete commitment to UIA undertakings.

Recovery management group: With the rapid evolution of the
financial and other crises in 2004, the heads of Secretariat departments, together
with the Treasurer, effectively constituted an informal 'recovery management
group' -- with the periodic involvement of two Full Members with long
experience of the Secretariat. It has been within this group that recovery
challenges and opportunities have been explored and discussed. It has been
this group that has had the continuing responsibility to nourish hopes for
the future of the UIA and Secretariat operations and projects, especially to
ensure new income for 2005. Whereas staff in general, although reasonably well
informed, have been protected from many of the uncertainties, this group has
had to deal with a hard-nosed assessment of the UIA reality.

Challenges: Although optimism has prevailed, and many actions have
been fruitfully taken beyond the call of duty - as acts of goodwill - this
group has been especially sensitive to the general erosion of goodwill,
both within the UIA environment and beyond. Much more significantly, since
members of the group have different concerns, potentially supportive contacts,
or senses of strategic possibilities (and vulnerabilities) has been the shift
from mutual encouragement to mutual discouragement - and precautious
withdrawal of shared commitment. There has been a dispiriting erosion of
shared responsibility for the long term, whilst seeking to meet short-term
commitments as appropriately as possible.

Consequences: Whilst a duty of care is still held as the highest
value, this group has reached a point of mutual exhaustion with regard to
creative approaches to new income in the longer term - despite reasonably
concrete possibilities for the short-term. It has been essentially unable
to orchestrate fruitfully the medium-term initiatives that its members have
individually proposed in a spirit of goodwill.

Contractual relationships

Belgian government: The UIA, notably through the privileged
access offered by appointment of former Belgian ambassadors as Secretaries-General,
has sought to cultivate the goodwill of the Belgian
government via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - and to anchor this support
in an accord de siège. The UIA has also helped
promote recognition of government goodwill towards
NGOs associated with the favourable status accorded to international NGOs in
Belgium as a result of UIA lobbying in 1919.

Challenge: With the many budgetary and other pressures on different
ministries, any assumption of goodwill has become
increasingly highly questionable.

Consequences: These have been well demonstrated: withdrawal of
the token subsidy; challenges to the carefully negotiated secretariat building,
etc. This is now framed condescendingly as a regime de faveur and
subject to the constant threat of eviction. Changes to legislation have been
designed to reduce advantages accorded to international NGOs - and
any justification for locating offices in Belgium. In times of crisis, it
also becomes apparent that there is very little room for manoeuvre in reducing
staff costs due to the very supportive social security legislation in Belgium.

Secretariat offices (MAI): The UIA is the founding tenant
in the MAI building

Challenge: The UIA is obliged to exhibit a measure of consideration - of goodwill - in
dealings with the building management, irrespective of contractual provisions.
This is reciprocated under particular circumstances to facilitate the situation
of both parties. The UIA has in fact long been dependent on extra cellar space
for archives - allocated freely out of goodwill by
the MAI.

Consequences: The inability of the building management, or its unwillingness,
to provide certain types of assistance or service obliges the Secretariat to
depend on the goodwill of personnel to carry out
certain tasks (rubbish, movement of furniture, etc).

Publisher (Saur/Gale): Beyond the purely commercial contractual
provisions, the relationship with Saur since 1982 has involved a remarkable
degree of goodwill on both sides, deriving in part
from the strong early associations of both parties with the documentation and
library community. Cultivating this goodwill is
recognized by both parties in any negotiation and in the response to crises.
Each responds to the constraints of the other to a degree that is recognized
as exceptional for the publishing industry.

Challenge: Whilst benefiting from mutually recognized strengths,
the pressure to innovate, involving a degree of risk, introduces a degree of
stress upon the climate of goodwill. Such difficulties
are exacerbated by the relatively recent status of Saur as a subsidiary of
a multinational corporation (first Reed Elsevier then Gale/Thomson) with more
stringent decision-making criteria and approaches.

Consequences: Although the bonds of professionalism and friendship
sustaining the goodwill have even featured in protective
measures in the changing ownership of Saur, this institutional overhead necessarily
dilutes to an increasing degree the privileged relation of goodwill with
Saur as a subsidiary.

Intergovernmental bodies (UN, UNESCO, etc): The UIA has prided
itself in the past on a relationship of goodwill with
various intergovernmental organizations, especially UN/ECOSOC and UNESCO.

Challenge: Given the evolution of these bodies and the administrative
charge they face in dealing with NGOs, such a relationship can no longer be
considered to hold.

Consequences: With the Cardoso Report proposals of 2004, for example,
it may be expected that UN/ECOSOC will undertake initiatives that will undermine
some of the information activities of the UIA - with little recognition
of the consequences on the part of UN/ECOSOC.

Meetings industry (AMs): The UIA has long cultivated the goodwill of
the meetings industry, notably through its Associate Membership.

Challenge: Given the professionalisation and commercialisation of
the meetings industry, and the emergence of a variety of competing fora to
the UIA Associate Membership, the transfer of responsibility for this group
with UIA from Ghislaine de Coninck to Joel Fischer poses a real challenge to
sustaining that goodwill - if only in more
purely commercial terms.

Consequences: The effects of any erosion in goodwill will
become apparent in the early months of 2005.

Services and pricing: Consistent with the goodwill dimension
of its statutory objectives, the UIA has traditionally endeavoured to facilitate
access of various sectors to its information products and services. The sectors
range from international associations (especially those whose members also
have nonprofit objectives), national equivalents (especially groups promoting
social change), intergovernmental organizations, and academic researchers.

Challenge: In seeking to increase access, the UIA has been severely
challenged to find formulae that strike a balance between an expression of goodwill and
creating vulnerability to exploitation. Such bodies may well expect the UIA
to act out of goodwill. The challenge is rendered
more acute by the need to be attentive to ensuring costs are covered (especially
where what is requested involves further work).

Consequences: The dilemmas around pricing services have created
uncertainties that have rendered decision-making inconsistent - despite
various efforts to clarify the matter. These uncertainties have undermined
UIA capacity to respond to such requests or to pursue the commercially marginal
clientele they represent. Responses have tended to be on a case-by-case basis,
resisting requests perceived to be exaggerated. This has served to undermine
external goodwill towards
the UIA.

Staff social security relations: It is important to recognize
that UIA personnel policy is to maintain staff in conformity with Commission
paritaire guidelines but not to be constrained by them.

Challenge: Staff are expected to subscribe to this formula - effectively
as an act of goodwill - or seek alternative employment. The matter
was one of the points of staff grievances in 2002 that led to the rise in
salary that contributed to the current liquidity crisis.

Consequences:This an related anomalies, such
as the absence of the 'normal' annual bonus (accorded in many
Belgian organizations), contributes to undermining goodwill.

Suppliers: As with any organization faced with budgetary
and cash flow constraints, the UIA is obliged to take advantage of suppliers
and to exploit their goodwill, by delaying payment
of invoices for services rendered.

Challenge: Whilst this process is managed with as much sensitivity
as possible it is especially problematic when it is the invoices of suppliers
who are generous with their time and effort in a spirit of goodwill towards
UIA.

Consequences: As is to be expected this tendency on the part of
the UIA erodes the willingness of certain suppliers to do business with the
UIA or to treat UIA business with any priority - a particular problem
in the case of computer emergencies.

Financial loans: The UIA has on occasion benefited from soft
loans, granted as an act of goodwill, notably to
facilitate new program initiatives. Not only may such loans be interest
free, their duration may be undetermined. Some may not even be called in, being
effectively converted into donations - as an act of goodwill.
Occasionally members of staff may accept that remuneration due to them be withheld
to facilitate cash flow - again as an act of goodwill.

Challenge: Although such arrangements are a relatively rare occurrence,
and the amounts may be relatively small, proper recognition has not necessarily
been given to such facilities in UIA accounts.

Consequences: Such processes may evoke a degree
of resentment and misunderstanding - eroding goodwill --
amongst those aware of the unresolved issues associated with such processes

External relations

International organizations: Goodwill towards international
organizations, through facilitating their activities, is implicit in the statutory
aims of the UIA. As a clearinghouse, the ability of the UIA to elicit information
from international organizations is fundamental to its viability.

Challenge: The UIA has been much challenged within its budget to
find ways to facilitate the activities of international organizations directly.
According to some criteria, it has been surprisingly successful in doing so indirectly throughinformation.
Now that the web reduces the need for publicizing an organization, such information
may only be provided to the UIA as a gesture of goodwill.

Consequences: To avoid any political implications associated with
promoting the name of the UIA in soliciting information - perceived
at abusing goodwill through disguised efforts at 'unionising' --
emphasis is placed on the services for which the information is solicited.
As a result the 'Union of International Associations' is relatively
little known. The development of the web is decreasing the response rate
from international organizations.

Representation to intergovernmental organizations: The UIA
has some form of consultative relationship with a variety of intergovernmental
bodies. In some cases this had resulted in the nomination of a permanent representative
to that body. By so doing the intention has been to advance the interests of
the UIA within the debates of that body -- as and when occasion permits. This
is a pattern cultivated by many international NGOs and is a form of 'lobbying' notably
cultivated by multinational for-profit coalitions in relation to the European
Commission.

Challenge: The question for the UIA is what it seeks to achieve
by this role and whether the activity of the representative should be in
any way remunerated - if it is not undertaken purely as an act of goodwill.
This is especially the case if the task is accumulated with other undeclared,
non-UIA reasons for interacting with the intergovernmental body about which
issues of conflict of interest might be raised. The value of this role is
called into question in times of crisis and its associated windows of opportunity - especially
when there is risk to cessation of UIA activities and the intergovernmental
body is actively envisaging allocation of new resources to a new competing
body.

Consequences: The assumption of goodwill on
both sides is called into question and the relationship is perceived as essentially
dysfunctional and unfruitful, whoever is held to blame.

Library community: The UIA originated from close and intimate
association with the development of the international bibliographic, classification
and library sciences. Given his contribution to the UDC, Paul Otlet is perceived
as a heroic pioneer in that community. Historically there has therefore been
considerable goodwill on the part of that community
towards the UIA and its products -- as a continuing fruit of that work. The
association with Saur, as a publisher specializing in the needs of the library
community and cultivating relations with its principal organizations, has only
helped to reinforce that impression.

Challenge: With the emergence of information sciences, and
their displacement of classical library science, historical appreciations
easily fade into insignificance, and with them any associated goodwill.
Internet-based information tools and databases have completely reframed the
needs of those responding to users - changing the status of international
reference tools. Saur and Gale engage in heroic efforts to adapt to these
rapid changes and the UIA necessarily benefits from their (interested) goodwill - but
this translates only vaguely into any appreciation on the part of end users.

Consequences: With passing generations, the UIA is losing very fast
its goodwill relationship with the library community
dependent on librarians trained in an earlier period. The relationship through
the Internet is of a different nature and, given the cost, highly conditional
upon usage rates.

Academic community: As the leading source of information
on the universe of international organizations over an extended period, the
UIA has always endeavoured to cultivate a relationship of goodwill with
researchers. This is enhanced by the extensive bibliographic research undertaken
on their work. This appreciation has in part been reaffirmed through the publication
of statistical data under contract in the UCLA/LSE Global Civil Society
Yearbook.

Challenge: Researchers have a very strong tendency to assume that
data valuable to them should be made freely available to them, especially
when their research is undertaken under a limited budget, as with students.
They have very little appreciation of the challenges of ensuring the economic
viability of the process whereby large databases are maintained. Researchers
with computer skills function within a culture that also encourages them
to obtain data 'freely',
notably by making unauthorised copies of datasets made available to one of
them.

Consequences: Any initial goodwill on
the part of researchers may quickly be soured by the dialogue with a UIA concerned
at adequate coverage of costs and protection against unauthorised copying.
This directly impacts the ability of the UIA to be associated with interesting
new research (such as on interorganizational networks) for which it may in
the past have appealed.

Fund-raising: The UIA does not normally engage in any form
of fund raising beyond sale of products, possibly at discount rates. Such fund
raising - the vehicle for the expression of goodwill for
many funding agencies and philanthropists -- has occasionally been undertaken
by Secretaries-General in the past with some success - usually amongst
Belgian contacts, notably under conditions of emergency. As indicated earlier,
there is no implication that Full Members should be active in this role - although
they could be active in this way as an act of goodwill.
Particular projects, notably the Encyclopedia project, have however been made
possible as a result of funds supplied in a manner which might be categorized
as fund-raising - but through personal contacts initiated by those associated
with the Secretariat.

Challenge: The intersectoral, international, clearinghouse profile
of the UIA is not attractive to funders with sectoral, national (or regional) 'concrete' commitments.
For such fund-raising to be successful, it has to be skillfully configured
in terms of well-articulated projects, as has been successfully demonstrated
by Nadia McLaren in responding to calls for proposals by the European Commission
and the World Bank. There is considerable wastage in any investment to obtain
funds.

Consequences: Through the absence of sustained project development,
the UIA has cut itself off from a possibility of enabling acts of goodwill in
its favour and in support of its objectives.

Public relations (Marketing): Despite the goodwill it might be expected
to evoke far more readily than in the case of many other bodies, throughout
its history the UIA has been much challenged in relation to this function.
Its weakness in this respect was a prime reason for transferring publication
and distribution of its main information products to Saur in 1982. This is
curious in that in principle the UIA could form the subject of a successful
and continuing public relations campaign - notably in the light of the
relative success of its Belgian step-sister the Mundaneum. It is recognized
as being well-positioned and has even been solicited for that reason (as with
the international ISBN number and the .INT domain, and more recently
with the .ORG domain and the GRID project)

Challenge: There are several reasons that the UIA has not been
able to undertake a more successful public relations campaign. At the level
of the Council, there has been an inability to resolve strategic dilemmas
about the nature of the business in which the UIA has engaged -- perhaps
to highlight the 'goodwill' associated
with promoting the action of international nonprofit associations (as vehicles
of 'goodwill' in
the world). Without resolving this 'identity crisis' - common
to many bodies entering the information society of the 21st century -- it is
difficult for any professional marketing approach to articulate a coherent
profile or determine to whom it should be addressed. It is for this reason
that a stress has been placed on marketing though UIA information products
and services - notably those that offer worldwide visibility over the
web.

Consequences: Amongst the many proposals, there has been no agreement
on what kind of publicity brochure should be produced - leaving Members
to each produce whatever brochure they feel corresponds to their audience.
Lacking an adequate marketing budget, it has proven difficult to hire a staff
member with the capacity to respond creatively to the challenge, if only
on a case-by-case basis. The various experiments have proven to be expensive
failures. There is considerably discomfort, notably at the Council level
at the failure to give coherence to the image of the UIA. For many this translates
into a regret at the focus on the use of the internet rather than emphasizing,
in an as yet unspecified way, other facets of the UIA.

Public information: The Secretariat is in receipt of a constant
stream of communications from organizations and individuals of every kind.
Responses cannot necessarily be made with standard texts or using automated
facilities, especially when they effectively call for dialogue.

Challenge: Many of these communications are sent in a spirit of goodwill and
call for a response in kind. The Secretariat does not have the resources to
do full justice to expectations of this nature. Decisions to respond, and the
quality of the response, then become a matter of goodwill.

Consequences: This situation is much regretted by those in
the Secretariat aware of the failure of goodwill in
the quality of responses.

Language (interpretation / translation): As an international
organization the UIA makes use of many languages, if only in the information
it receives from international organizations. Its working languages are English
and French, the former being primarily used in the product it produces, the
latter primarily in its decision-making processes, notably in its statutory
meetings. Given its limited budget, issues of interpretation and translation
are of considerable significance, notably in a bilingual country - especially
given that many of the 'English' users in the Secretariat are Dutch
speakers.

Challenge: Although the translation of texts into English for documentation
purposes is part of the job specification of those concerned, the translation
of French texts into English for other purposes (administration, marketing,
etc) does not fall within any job specification. The same is true of translations
into French. Such translations are therefore undertaken, or checked, as an
act of goodwill. In the dynamics of Council meetings,
and in the absence of interpretation, participants with little skills in one
of the languages used submit to the other out of goodwill and
are offered interpretations out of goodwill.

Consequences: Considerable tension may arise out of expectations
that a person with the capacity to translate is expected to do so out of goodwill,
even though it is not part of their job. Significant further stress is caused
at imperfections in translations - especially if they are destined for
audiences that may be sensitive to this. Participants at meetings may be alienated
by the expectation that they should follow debates partially conducted in a
language with which they have little or no familiarity - whether or
not they seek to benefit from interpretation offered out of goodwill,
but possibly felt to be an indignity.

'Friends of the UIA': There is a long-standing pattern whereby
some visitors to the UIA, whether staff working at a distance or Council members,
are freely accommodated with 'friends of the UIA' based in Brussels - as
an act of goodwill. In a crisis situation, in which those with a formal
duty of care have effectively disassociated themselves from the recovery process,
dependence on the goodwill of this group has increased. Strategic
advice on opportunities has been sought from professional friends of the Treasurer
and of other Full Members with Brussels links. The assistance as an act of goodwill of
regular consultants (normally employed for other purposes) has been highly
beneficial. Relatives of staff members have provided concrete assistance (furniture
moving, etc).

Challenge: Whilst such assistance is most welcome, the need for recourse
to it may be regretted as indicative of dysfunctionality in UIA operations.

Distribution of excess stocks: Each year the Saur produces a number of UIA
products in excess of the capacity to sell them. As a gesture of goodwill,
these are offered to UIA free of charge, subject only to UIA taking responsibility
for transportation costs and avoiding their distribution to potential
customers (which would then reduce the collective Saur/UIA income). Given its
relationship with international organizations, the UIA has a strong motivation
to distribute such publications to them at a minimal charge (or for the cost
of transportation only). This applies equally to libraries in developing countries.

Challenge: A number of experiments have been made. But the cost
of transporting such publications from a warehouse in Germany to Brussels
(or to any other location) is prohibitive of many transactions. It is also
important to appreciate that transportation to developing countries may results
in customs costs to the recipient far in excess of any they would appreciate - or
would generate any goodwill. Some possibilities are
difficult to administer for lack of sufficient staff.

Consequences: The excess stocks therefore tend to be pulped and the
UIA is unable to fulfil a statutory act of goodwill that
is in principle within its power. This deprives organizations in need of a
valuable tool and deprives the UIA of their goodwill.
This wastage is experienced as a depressing lost opportunity by staff who have
worked on those products

Information-related

Data: Issues of goodwill relating to the provision of information
by international organizations are discussed above.

Accuracy: It is appropriate to note that the UIA is dependent
to a high degree on the goodwill of editorial staff,
individually and collectively, in researching and updating profiles in an assiduous
and responsible manner - in order to sustain the high quality of the
product. Such dependence should not be taken granted.

Security: It is not practical for the Secretariat to operate
at a high level of security. Security is high where feasible but there is a
dependence on the goodwill of in-house users of its
facilities to sustain adequate security and to prevent abuse of the system.
Furthermore there is a presumption of goodwill that
in-house or remote associates will not exploit information resources inappropriately.
There is therefore a dependence on goodwill, rather
than difficult-to-implement security controls that imply lack of confidence
in the associate.

Product security: Information products and services (CD-Rom,
online, etc) is increasingly vulnerable to abuse. Application of high security
features is perceived as unfriendly by potential customers and therefore strongly
discouraged by Saur. The claim is made that institutional customers are respectful
of such information and do not seek to abuse it. This is typically of the culture
favoured by the open source community. This is a major gesture of confidence
in the goodwill of users and, on the part of UIA,
in Saur - one with significant commercial risk attached to it. The UIA
is also obliged to presume that Gale will not abuse its privileged access to
UIA data.

Infra-structure related

Software (and learning): The UIA has benefited extensively
from software made available as an act of goodwill - notably
open source software. It has also benefited from gestures of goodwill on
the part of software suppliers (notably for its network software) and application
developers (notably for Revelation). UIA operations have benefited to a very
high degree from the goodwill exhibited by key associates
in acquiring competence of their own accord (and on their own time) with new
software - exemplifying the characteristics of a learning organization - in
order to develop new applications. The UIA has never had to invest in training
courses.

Challenge: The Secretariat has developed a sub-culture of self-dependency
with regard to computer software and its development. Those without the ability
or disposition to acquire such skills then become dependent on the goodwill of
those possessing them. The challenge is increased by the fact that some operations
may be dependent on a degree of know-how that is only transmissible with difficulty,
or not at all. This gives rise to situations in which, to minimize costs, assistance
is sought from computer-skilled friends who act out of goodwill.
[Ironically, at the time of completing this summary, a professional brought
in to complete the upgrade of the network facility complained that it could
have been completed rapidly and at lower cost had the UIA's internet
service provider exhibited a small degree of goodwill in
making an adjustment - which indeed they were not prepared to do.]

Consequences: This gives to tensions and resentments when it is
implied that those with those skills (and thereby defined by them in some
measure) should act in response to the needs of those that do not - even
though it may not be their job, or their desire, to be available in this
way. The dependency exposes the UIA to vulnerability in the event of illness,
holidays or departures. The direction of development of UIA applications
may be highly determined by the software available and the ability to develop
it in-house. But when the development undertaken in a spirit of goodwill is
not fully appreciated by those expected to use it, this undermines that goodwill and
willingness to make such contributions.

Hardware (maintenance): The continued functioning of the
extensive range of computer equipment basic to UIA Secretariat operations has
depended over many years on the goodwill of key staff
members in substituting effectively for any costly (and often ineffective)
maintenance contract - often acting far outside their job specifications.
The UIA has only rarely been successful in soliciting equipment - a traditional
form of goodwill on the part of computer companies - despite
efforts to do so and an interesting profile.

Challenge: The Secretariat has developed a sub-culture of self-dependency
with regard to computer hardware maintenance. Those without the ability or
disposition to acquire such skills then become dependent on the goodwill of
the few possessing them. The challenge is increased by the fact that maintaining
some server-related equipment may be dependent on a degree of know-how that
is only transmissible with difficulty, or not at all.

Consequences: This gives to tensions and resentments when it is
implied that those with those skills (and thereby defined by them in some
measure) should act in response to the needs of those that do not - even
though it may not be their job, or their desire, to be available in this
way. The dependency exposes the UIA to vulnerability in the event of illness,
holidays or departures

Furniture: The UIA has only very rarely invested in furniture
and for long years was only too obviously constrained by the quality of furniture
it used. The Secretariat has however benefited to a very high degree from a
series of goodwill donations of high quality furniture
from a succession of multinational corporations - to the degree that
most offices may now well have been largely furnished from this source.

Challenge: Whilst such assistance is most welcome, the need for recourse
to it may be regretted as indicative of dysfunctionality in UIA operations.

Office facilities: The UIA has long had a 'goodwill policy' of
being open to making available office facilities to other parties where there
was good reason. For many years the UIA housed the FAIB under these conditions - and
continues to provide the FAIB with computer facilities. It has provided facilities
for visiting scholars, for visiting Council members, and for visiting NGO officers.
Because of the obvious mutual benefits, the UIA currently provides space for
its own Treasurer. As part of its project work, facilities are also provided
for a contracted consultant.

Challenge: Although such facilities are provided under conditions
where the very low costs to UIA are far outweighed by the benefits, it is
important to recognize when such expressions of goodwill become
problematic and under what conditions the costs should be challenged or compensation
sought (eg costly international phone charges).

Consequences: In particular cases provision of such facilities is
recognized to be a responsibility, possibly unwelcome in times of crisis. This
is notably the case with regard to configuring computer resources for short-term
visitors. The UIA is therefore less enthusiastic than it might be about welcoming
such visitors.

Office services: Secretariats of the size of that of the
UIA normally depend on personnel to undertake the most basic tasks. In the
case of the UIA, for budgetary reasons, there is almost no secretarial capacity.
The focus is on editorial and production tasks and their administration.

Challenge: Simple tasks (photocopying, filing, coffee, moving furniture,
etc), when they have to be performed, are therefore undertaken essentially
as acts of goodwill and recognized as such in requests
for them to be done. One consequence is that the more the task is outside the
job specification, the greater the expectation that it should be undertaken
by a more senior member of staff.

Consequences: Although many such tasks are handled without any problem,
there is recognition of a level of inappropriateness and exploitation of goodwill as
people engage in or avoid such responsibilities.

Varia

Acknowledgements: The UIA is not especially graceful in acknowledging
the many years that individuals may devote - in a spirit of goodwill --
to support for the UIA, whether as Full Members, on the Council, in elected
positions, as members of staff, as independent, or in other capacities.

Legal and insurance protection: Those who associate with
the UIA, in capacities that may involve a measure of risk, may well do so in
a spirit of goodwill, neglecting to consider whether they are appropriately
protected. This applies both to health insurance and to vulnerability to legal
action.